Is Jennifer Aniston really destructive to our society?

By
Jen Chaney

Easily outraged Fox talk show host Bill O'Reilly has blasted Jennifer Aniston for making comments that he says are "destructive to our society." And no, he's not talking about the fact that she said she would like to be in the "Arrested Development" movie.

In a press conference earlier this week to promote her upcoming rom-com, "The Switch" -- a movie that happens to be about a woman who gets artificially inseminated -- Aniston said that a woman does not need to settle with a man just to have a child. Most people would hear that statement and say, "That's technically true." They would not think, "Man, Jennifer Aniston is going to convince a bunch of 12-year-olds that it's okay to go out and get pregnant." But then, most people are not Bill O'Reilly. Here's video from his Fox show in which he and commentators Margaret Hoover and Gretchen Carlson take Rachel Green to task for her statement:

"Women are realizing it more and more knowing that they don't have to settle with a man just to have that child ... times have changed and that is also what is amazing is that we do have so many options these days, as opposed to our parents' days when you can't have children because you have waited too long."

She also added:

"The point of the movie is what is it that defines family? It isn't necessarily the traditional mother, father, two children and a dog named Spot ... Love is love and family is what is around you and who is in your immediate sphere."

I'm trying to find the societal destructiveness in those words and I am just not seeing it. Yes, some women now can pursue pregnancy even if they don't have a partner. Which means that they now have the ability to realize the joy of motherhood, even if the Romance Gods have been unjustly unkind to them. Good for them.

As for preteens and teens who somehow take away the message that it's cool for them to go ahead and start conceiving children, I'd say that any kid focused on being a mother -- with a man or without one -- probably has some other issues that should be addressed, none of which have anything to do with words spoken during a Hollywood press conference at the Four Seasons.

During the week when "Eat Pray Love" arrives in theaters and tries to emphasize the liberating options that lie before the modern woman -- well, that, and sell us a bunch of stuff at World Market -- it's distressing that some people still don't understand how empowering it is for a woman to know that she can live a full life, with children, no matter the obstacles in front of her. That's what, I think, Aniston was trying to convey.

I'm shocked, shocked to find that FauxNews is taking a mere portion of a statement and showing it out of context and expressing outrage. Surely this has never happened before?

I remember in 1983 when The Big Chill came out and people debated a woman's ability to have a child on her own. Here's news Bill --it's already happening and it has nothing to do with Jennifer Aniston.

Is he kidding? What about all the trash we see in national tv? Those programs do not show anything good or send a good example to teens!! Please get a life Mr. O'Reilly or start a campaing in educating men so they would never abandon their kids & wifes!

I have met Gretchen Carlson socially and at several "events" where she was a "centerpiece" and I was on the floor laughing at her diatribe here. I have concluded that she is an intellectual light weight despite her education and personally wouldn't trust anything that comes out of her mouth. As for O'Reilly? He gets the basics right but twists them to suit his agenda and creates a crisis for the sake of ratings. Nothing new or newsworthy here. Just entertainment.

I-270Exit1 - Reasonable people should not be outraged at Bill O'Reilly's outrage.
_____________
Reasonable people should not be outraged at Bill O'Reilly's outrage...he is a clown and should be received as one.

I'm more offended by the loose morals and sexcapades that she and the rest of the "Friends" cast depicted under the guise of humor at 8 p.m. when lots of little kids were still awake and watching television.

Well, that and the People magazine headline writer for "Jennifer Aniston: Women Don't Need Men to Be Good Moms." Shouldn't men with kids be good Dads? Or does it mean Women should be good Parents regardless of whether or not a child has a father?

When people have to use the phrase "turkey baster" you know the level of imagination at work here in the script (i.e., none). Betcha the words "test tube" appear within two minutes of the opening credits too. What danecook.

As for Bill O'Reilly, while I am no fan of his personally, his job is to get people talking (about him) so I'd say people fell for the bait and mission accomplished.

Jennifer Aniston comments is just a symtom from her divorce from actor Brad Pitt. During Angelina's Jolie premier for "Salt" who could miss Angelina's constant gushing about Brad Pitt and what a good father he is to his & her children. Jen's still bitter about the divorce. If Jen was still married to Brad Pitt and had his chilren, her comments would have been completely opposite regarding this subject.

Excellent takedown, Jen, and while I enjoyed your closing sentence, the first two words of this piece are ones I'm using from now on to describe so many rightie commentators-with proper credit given you, of course.

And as was pointed out upthread, didn't these three knuckle-draggers remember how criticizing a fictional character-Murphy Brown-kinda blow up in Dan Quayle's face?

Scads of couples break up over the issue of whether or not to have kids ... and probably bigger scads of couples feel differently about the issue but get married anyway and hope for the best, or how one partner feels about kids changes over the course of the marriage. And how many couples have kids because one partner wants 'em and the other doesn't, but they think that will "fix" their problems?

OReilly and his inane and pompus rants are the real threat to our society. There are a whole lot of uneducated (or badly educated) people that may mistake him and his peers at faux as a news source. Now that's something to be worried about.

You're just not seeing it?? I'm the last person to side with Bill O'reilly on anything, but to just attack him and not question Anniston is wrong and ostrich like. Sorry, Dan Quayle was right about Murphy Brown. 71% of African -American children are now born to single parent households. The Hispanic rate is not much better. Children without fathers are much more likely to have problems in life and end up in jail. It gets worse every day. Just because Anniston and her rich friends, who can afford nannies and the best schools, want to "take care" of babies by themselves doesn't mean they should blindly encourage others to.

I deserve way more credit than Jennifer Aniston for destroying family. She only *plays* a woman who has a kid without a man. I've had two kids without a man and am (legally, in Canada and several states) married to another woman.

I agree with dorkusmaximus. Aniston is destructive to society whenever she displays her acting skills and not because of her comment. Thousands of men and women would agree with what she said. Bill O'Reilly is a blustering moron who is truly destructive to society.

When I first heard that Jenn said it, I thought it was an awful thing to say. Hang around juvenille court long enough and watch just how many fathers live with or raise the children who are arrested (less than 1%).

That is not to say that all children without a father have it worse - just that most of the children who get into trouble do not have a father. This also applies to children who don't finish high school, etc.

So, while Bill O'Reilly may be a jerk, Jenn Anisten also deserves to be criticized when she claims that fathers are irrelevant.

No one is attacking families or moms who go it alone. I believe he is attacking the idea that children don't need fathers.

I guess that all depends on what you think that "love", "motherhood" and "family" really mean.

I see O'Reilly's case, if these things are a mere question of stopping by the doc, spreading your legs and getting a sperm-injection, then why shouldn't this be confusing for 12 year old girls. And you can't say that pregnancy=adulthood=love isn't an issue for underaged women.

Anistons' problem here is that she is commercializing the whole debate as well as epitomizing the ethical dilemma. Sure, some 40 year old women decide to have children on their own, it's their right & their choice. But this is a Hollywood movie that we're talking about here, and that speaks volumes.

There can be no greater danger to society than Bill O'Reilly. He, O'Reilly- O'Reilly loves the sound of his own crapola. And he is one dangerous man. He incited any nutcase who latched on to his vicious smear of Dr. Tiller and was directly responsible for his murder. He suddenly stopped talking about the good and decent doctor after one of Bill's dirtbags murdered the man and in church. And the dirty rotten murderer did it in the name of "his" God.
Dirtymouth O'Reilly sexually harassed one of his young station staff to the point where she sued him and you know what - she is forbidden by court order to reveal the indecent things he said to her. Faux Propaganda shut that lawsuit up real fast and refuse to even talk about it.
Maybe Bill's own kids are regretting having him for a father, a man who is a danger to decency and this society.
O'Reilly's self-image greatly exceeds his morality, intelligence and talent, which he has none. Bill, you belong in a garbage dumpster where you'll fit right in.